HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marina Medakovic
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Transit Commission and Richard Ridge
Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Medakovic v. Toronto Transit Commission
1This matter was initially scheduled for hearing on September 22 and 23, 2011.
2The applicant has been in Belgrade, Serbia since September 2010 tending to her ailing mother. The applicant had advised the Tribunal that her intention was to return to Toronto by the end of August 2011, but she was not certain as her mother’s health was variable. She subsequently advised the Tribunal that her mother remained critically ill. She indicated that she had to postpone her return to Toronto and that she would not be able to attend the hearing on the dates scheduled. She asked that her file be placed on “hold.”
3By Interim Decision dated July 29, 2011, the hearing scheduled for September 23 and 24, 2011 was cancelled. The Interim Decision also directed the applicant:
To advise the Tribunal and the respondents as soon as she is able to proceed with this matter, or, in any event, within three months of this Interim Decision the applicant is required to advise the Tribunal and the respondents as to the status of her return to Toronto.
4By e-mail dated September 1, 2011, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she was not able to inform the Tribunal of her return date to Toronto within the time period set out in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision.
5By e-mail dated September 6, 2011, the Tribunal’s Registrar requested the applicant to “please advise the Tribunal regarding your plans to proceed with your application and your return to Toronto closer to the October 29, 2011 deadline.”
6On January 20, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction indicating that the applicant had not communicated with the Tribunal as directed and directed the applicant to communicate in writing with the Tribunal and the other parties within 10 days of the Case Assessment Direction whether she intended to pursue the Application, and if so. when she would be returning to Toronto and available for the hearing failing which the Application would be dismissed as abandoned.
7By e-mail dated January 22, 2012, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she would be returning to Toronto in June 2012 and that she would be pursuing her Application.
8By e-mail dated January 30, 2012, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she would be available for a hearing during the month of October 2012.
9On February 8, 2012, the Tribunal issued Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the parties notifying them that the Application had been rescheduled for hearing on October 22 and 24, 2012 at the Tribunal’s hearing centre in Toronto.
10By e-mail dated June 24, 2012, the applicant notified the Tribunal that she would not be returning to Canada as previously planned, that she did not know when she would be returning to Canada and that it was out of her hands. She acknowledged that “it will affect the status of my file.”
11As the Tribunal stated in Ouwroulis v. New Locomotion, 2009 HRTO 335, at para. 7:
The opportunity for an individual to make a claim of discrimination to a publicly funded adjudicative body, which has extensive procedural and remedial powers, comes with the obligation to respect the seriousness and significance of the process, and comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. The Tribunal’s procedures are less formal than a court’s and aim to enhance access, including for those parties who may be self-represented. But this informality should not be interpreted to mean that parties may take a casual attitude towards complying with Tribunal directions. There may be circumstances which justify a party’s failure to comply with a Tribunal rule or direction. However, an applicant who does not respond to Tribunal’s directions risks having the application dismissed.
12Under the circumstances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of July, 2012.
Signed by
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair